The slaying of a local police officer in the line of duty, as happened last weekend in Indianapolis, is certainly a tragedy. Local news stations obviously covered this story and its aftermath, as they should have. However, while I know I'm inviting criticism for being somehow unsympathetic or uncaring, it is my opinion, as well as the opinions of others with whom I've spoken, that this local coverage was nothing short of severe overkill.
During the week, I've witnessed on every local news program on every channel a barrage of coverage from the actual shooting to the vigils to the processions to the funeral to the burial. And everywhere along the way I have been bombarded with the comments and Facebook posts from dozens of family members, friends, co=workers, neighbors, and just everyday strangers, as reported by the news media. All of them, of course, lauded IMPD officer Renn for his bravery and meritorious service to the city. And I have no doubt that he deserves this praise, as he was a brave officer who died in the line of duty. But I do not know any of these average citizens, nor do I care what they have to say about Renn.
During the week of over-coverage of the death of this officer, there were other shootings, homicides, and deaths in the line of duty of everyday people. Most of them received either a report on the local news, if it was a homicide or shooting, or at least an obituary in the local newspaper. But none of them received the attention bestowed on Renn.
We do this all the time. When those four officials were killed in our embassy in Benghazi in 2012, only one of them was our actual ambassador. But you never hear their names mentioned. When Benghazi is referred to (normally by Republicans) if any names are mentioned it is always the ambassador. Were his subordinates not as important as human beings?
People sometimes die. It's all part of the cycle of life. And the death of a person is tragic for those who knew and loved that person. If the person is established as a high-profile individual, it is normal and natural that their deaths are given appropriate news coverage. But news organizations should look long and hard as to what counts as appropriate and what goes beyond into gratuitous coverage.
Police officers, firefighters, and paramedics are all in the public safety business. And maybe it is appropriate to provide more news coverage for them if they are killed in the line of duty. But that coverage should be confined to actual news, not maudlin fluff. As Sgt. Friday used to say every week on a popular detective show, "Just the facts, Ma'am."
Friday, July 11, 2014
Friday, July 04, 2014
God's Biggest Problem
Christians' biggest problem is explaining how an all-loving God can allow so much suffering. But they make up excuses by saying things like, "God's morality is different from ours. Maybe what seems like suffering to us is necessary to God's larger plan that we don't know anything about." But that's just a cop out, a conceit, because they can't explain it within the context of their Christian faith without resorting to such excuse writing.
In Genesis it says that God made us in His image. Evangelicals and Creationists always assume it means his bodily image. But John 4:24 says, "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." That means Christians should always view God not as a human but as a spirit, and since we are created in his spiritual image, we have the exact same morality as God. So either God has acted immorally when he committed genocide, misogyny, rape, and slavery. Or all that is moral and we should be allowed to do it, too. If the latter, then why would anyone want to have anything to do with God, because humans have obviously evolved a higher sense of morality. If the former, it means God is fallible and susceptible to the same weaknesses as humans.
In Genesis it says that God made us in His image. Evangelicals and Creationists always assume it means his bodily image. But John 4:24 says, "God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in the Spirit and in truth." That means Christians should always view God not as a human but as a spirit, and since we are created in his spiritual image, we have the exact same morality as God. So either God has acted immorally when he committed genocide, misogyny, rape, and slavery. Or all that is moral and we should be allowed to do it, too. If the latter, then why would anyone want to have anything to do with God, because humans have obviously evolved a higher sense of morality. If the former, it means God is fallible and susceptible to the same weaknesses as humans.
Bill of Rights 2.0
It seems like a lot of court cases these days are centered around separate Bill of Rights issues, such as the freedom of religion vs. freedom of speech or whether the right to choose your own reproductive health care is trumped by someone else's right to their religious views. Then there is always that pesky right to bear arms issue and how far it should go.
So, to fix all that, what we really need to do is replace the First and Second Amendments with another, broader amendment that prioritizes these rights. The new amendment would also encode in the Constitution the rights that most courts have already interpreted the First Amendment as granting, such as separation of church and state and the right to privacy.
So to keep it simple, allow me to prioritize the rights myself. All it needs now is a proper endorsement by Congress and then three-fourths of the states. That shouldn't be too hard, right?
The first priority goes to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Yes, expression is a type of speech as determined by the courts, but now it has it's own mention. Following closely is Freedom of the Media (since "Press" is quickly becoming archaic). One of the first things dictatorial governments try to do is limit the distribution of news coverage, so this freedom ranks high.
Freedom of privacy must be added in third place. This would include the provision that whatever an adult does in the privacy of his or her own home or on their own private property is none of the government's damn business, as long as no other person is being harmed. So smoke your weed or hire a whore; it's your own business as long as you're doing it in a private setting.
Coming in a close fourth would be the right of people to peacefully assemble. However, since mobs can sometimes get violent, the government has the right to break up demonstrations even if only a few protestors are actively participating in the violent or threatening acts.
Freedom of Religion would get a distant fifth place. Government still can't prefer one religion over another. However, people would still be able to believe whatever the hell they want and to worship when and where they want. But if this right even comes close to abridging any of the rights above, then those rights would get priority. This would also mean that someone's religious beliefs could never be used to force any type of compliance from others, such as happened recently with the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision.
The last enumerated right would be the right to keep and bear arms. You can own a gun, or many guns, as long as the barrel is at least 15 inches in length (so no handguns), that they are not automatic or semi-automatic, and that the owner has a government-issued permit. In obtaining said permit, the state would add the owner's name to a national firearm registry which could be computer accessed instantly by anyone who wants to know via the Internet. Additionally, Congress or the states would have authority to pass laws that would regulate gun purchases and ownership provisions within the scope of this amendment.
There! The rights issues have been sorted out. Let's do it!
So, to fix all that, what we really need to do is replace the First and Second Amendments with another, broader amendment that prioritizes these rights. The new amendment would also encode in the Constitution the rights that most courts have already interpreted the First Amendment as granting, such as separation of church and state and the right to privacy.
So to keep it simple, allow me to prioritize the rights myself. All it needs now is a proper endorsement by Congress and then three-fourths of the states. That shouldn't be too hard, right?
The first priority goes to Freedom of Speech and Expression. Yes, expression is a type of speech as determined by the courts, but now it has it's own mention. Following closely is Freedom of the Media (since "Press" is quickly becoming archaic). One of the first things dictatorial governments try to do is limit the distribution of news coverage, so this freedom ranks high.
Freedom of privacy must be added in third place. This would include the provision that whatever an adult does in the privacy of his or her own home or on their own private property is none of the government's damn business, as long as no other person is being harmed. So smoke your weed or hire a whore; it's your own business as long as you're doing it in a private setting.
Coming in a close fourth would be the right of people to peacefully assemble. However, since mobs can sometimes get violent, the government has the right to break up demonstrations even if only a few protestors are actively participating in the violent or threatening acts.
Freedom of Religion would get a distant fifth place. Government still can't prefer one religion over another. However, people would still be able to believe whatever the hell they want and to worship when and where they want. But if this right even comes close to abridging any of the rights above, then those rights would get priority. This would also mean that someone's religious beliefs could never be used to force any type of compliance from others, such as happened recently with the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision.
The last enumerated right would be the right to keep and bear arms. You can own a gun, or many guns, as long as the barrel is at least 15 inches in length (so no handguns), that they are not automatic or semi-automatic, and that the owner has a government-issued permit. In obtaining said permit, the state would add the owner's name to a national firearm registry which could be computer accessed instantly by anyone who wants to know via the Internet. Additionally, Congress or the states would have authority to pass laws that would regulate gun purchases and ownership provisions within the scope of this amendment.
There! The rights issues have been sorted out. Let's do it!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)